Apple slips up on ChillyHell macOS malware, lets it past security . . . for 4 years ChillyHell, a modular macOS backdoor believed to be long dormant, has likely been infecting computers for years while flying under the radar, according to security researchers who spotted a malware sample uploaded to VirusTotal in May. The malware, written in C++ and developed for Intel architectures, was originally reported …
Lots of small developers have a hard time navigating Apple's red tape so it requires manually authorizing installs. Users get used to that which makes the notion of signed applications less effective. If Apple were to put in the OS no way to bypass the restrictions, more people might jump to W or linux as lots of development would move elsewhere. I use plenty of the "big" applications, but I find many very niche applications that do one or two things make my life so much easier. A new clipboard utility I just bought has made filing Copyright applications much easier. I used to have to open a text document and save data and application/registration numbers so I could record them and then copy/paste in all of the places the government forms need that information.
> ...lots of development would move elsewhere.
A very long-time freeware electronics design tool, the developer recently tried to port/fork from Windows to Mac, bought the Mac and compiler, even issued a beta.... and was overwhelmed, quit the fork. It frankly would be easier for his few Mac-fans to buy a <$199 mini-PC or run Wine or a VM.
That's not "lots" of development but shows which way the wind blows. Apple needs a better plan to disapprove AND approve apps.
Let's be realistic here: the process works for the most, but expecting it to be 100% crime proof is IMHO a tad unrealistic anyway - you have to stay alert.
What worries me more is that this was flagged earlier, yet somehow managed to fall through the cracks - that definitely needs to be investigated and fixed.
> Lots of small developers have a hard time navigating Apple's red tape
I don't think that's the issue; for the Mac signed apps are most-commonly signed locally and then distributed directly. The Mac App Store is the thing where you're navigating Apple's opaque acceptability criteria of the week, and that's not all that popular.
I think the issue is more the annual developer fee that is required to obtain a certificate from Apple.
You've been required to upload your bundle to Apple for notarization for a very long time.
If you don't do that, you can't distribute it at all.
Beginning in macOS 10.14.5 [Mojave], software signed with a new Developer ID certificate and all new or updated kernel extensions must be notarized to run. Beginning in macOS 10.15 [Catalina], all software built after June 1, 2019, and distributed with Developer ID must be notarized.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing-macos-software-before-distribution
However, if you ship via the Apple App Store then they'll notarize it automatically for you on upload.
To make it even more irritating, the notary service API has changed several times since 2019, and falls over once or twice a month.
sudo spctl --master-disable
I run that on every Mac I touch. Apple's process for opening non-signed software got so annoying in Mac OS 15 that it's time to just shut it down.
But all you have to do if you're going to distribute non-signed software is include that instruction to your users. It's time to reject Apple's attempt at controlling what you can run.
Yes, some people disable Gatekeeper.
However it's very bad business to ask your users to do that.
It's scary and complicated for the average user, and endpoint security tools definitely report this, if they don't actively prevent it.
It's also extremely likely to become impossible. I haven't checked on Tahoe yet, it's painful to verify as you need a totally clean install.
> You've been required to upload your bundle to Apple for notarization for a very long time.
You seem to be challenging my assertion that signing for direct distribution involves no red tape. Can you explain what red tape you think exists?
A quick check of my GitHub history shows that I've signed my application for direct distribution something like 15 times in the last year and a half. There is no review process. Apple has not checked my application for content or purpose. There are no criteria that I have to meet.
The only obstacle is the developer fee. Which I'm not that bothered about. But here's a fun fact: preferences are not objective.
No, I stated a fact and provided a link to the official Apple requirement, including when it was introduced.
I find it disturbing how many people downvoted the objective truth. Care to explain why?
I've signed and notarized macOS applications more than 15 times in the last fortnight. This is of course part of our automated build pipeline. The notarize phase takes several minutes, usually longer than the rest of the build. That's not insignificant.
I believe xcode can do the notarization for you if your application is relatively simple, so perhaps you simply haven't realised how long it takes.
Apple's service failed on two of those occasions, causing a broken build and requiring manual intervention to run it again. A few projects have split that into a separate buildbot job to make retrying easier.
Secondly, there is a lot of actual "red tape".
- There are an increasing number of macOS "entitlements" that have to be explicitly authorised by Apple. Last time we needed to add those it took about a month to get the response from Apple.
- Several times a year Apple change the developer agreement and break every notarization API call for every project, until an authorised person logs into the company developer account and accepts the new agreement. It keeps our lawyer pretty busy.
I'm not a mindreader so I can but posit reasons you got downvoted. But, obviously, splitting hairs would be one of them. Do you agree with MachDiamond's assertion that "Lots of small developers have a hard time navigating Apple's red tape so it requires manually authorizing installs. " or not?
As a secondary guess at the reason, the text you quoted said (emphasis added):
> Beginning in macOS 10.15 [Catalina], all software built after June 1, 2019, and distributed with Developer ID must be notarized.
You said:
> If you don't [upload your bundle to Apple for notarization], you can't distribute it at all.
Those are not equivalent statements. Your claim may very well be true but it isn't supported by the quotation given.
It's unclear who and what you think you're responding to with that comment. But if it helps for clarity: whether signing requires a developer ID or not is unlikely to be a factor in why people are reacting negatively to your posts, which was briefly where the conversational goalposts were a couple of posts ago.
Enjoy whatever tangent you're on now; good luck to anybody who responds and expects coherence.
